- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 15:30:57 -0400
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>, www-tag@w3.org
On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 08:35:08PM +0200, Julian Reschke wrote: > As far as I understand the issue, *any* algorithm that attempts to map > > (uriref, name) -> (uri) > > will be unreasonable if it attempts to produce a URI in the same URI schema > as the namespace name. This is because for an arbitrary URI scheme, there > will be no obvious way to produce new valid URIs without having a priori > knowledge about this URI scheme's syntax (and semantics). What if the algorithm were general to all hierarchical URI? (uri,name) -> treat "name" as a relative URI, and "uri" as the base per RFC 2396 section 5. This seems entirely consistent with the meaning of hierarchy in 2396. It doesn't solve all problems, for example, what to do with existing namespace URI that don't end in "/"? But it appears to me to be a good way forward. BTW, I would also really like to see consistent use of "URI" versus "URI reference" in these discussions. They are very different things, and confusing the two seems to me to be one of the reasons why RDF is in such a mess (IMHO) with respect to its use of "#". See; http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2001Dec/0019 MB -- Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile (formerly Planetfred) Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. distobj@acm.org http://www.markbaker.ca http://www.idokorro.com
Received on Wednesday, 22 May 2002 15:22:34 UTC